Candidates give dirty work to PACs

Editorials

Discussion

COMMENTING ON STORIES:

Welcome to our story comments feature. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including the unpopular ones. We only ask that you keep your conversations clean, civil and on the topic of the story you are commenting on.

Coinciding with our websites redesign, we launched our new story comments feature through Disqus.

Disqus gives users the ability to log into our story comments feature so that they may be able to track their conversations, receive emails when their comments get a reply or to even have your comments update onto your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

For the time being, our story comments feature will continue to have the ability to post comments anonymously. We reserve the right to require registration in the future using your name and verified email address.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified at the newspaper’s discretion for a number of different reasons. Please follow our Online Rules of Conduct at all times.

RULES OF CONDUCT:

We reserve the right to remove comments that are unacceptable, to wit:

1. False and inacurate statements.
2. Personal attacks. Explicit name-calling.
3. Harassing, harmful, vulgar, obscene and defamatory language.
4. Threatening statements or statements that suggest violence.
5. Hate speech of any kind.
6. Intolerant comments on religion, race, age, gender, sexual preference or disabilities.
7. Accusations of criminal activity.
8. Content that is harmful to children and minors in any way.
9. References to any type of sexual activity and other private matters.
10. Random and inflammatory statements that are off topic.
11. Advertising of any kind.
12. Typing in all caps.

WE ENCOURAGE REASONABLE AND COURTEOUS COMMENTS THAT:

1. Create conversation on issues of interest and concern to fellow readers and local community members.
2. Express opinions and contrarian views.
3. Stimulate debate with respectful language.
4. Stay within the boundaries of these rules.

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SUSPEND OR TERMINATE ACCESS FOR:

1. Violating any of these Online Rules of Conduct.
2. Deliberately disrupting discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or spam.
3. Misrepresentation of identity or impersonating another user.

WE WELCOME:

1. Flagging violations of these rules that you observe to our attention.

MONITORING:

We monitor comments regularly Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Approval of comments outside of this time (including weekends) will be sporadic.

comments powered by Disqus

January 13, 2012

Anonymous Daily Star The Daily Star Fri Jan 13, 2012, 02:25 AM EST

The old "wink and a nod" so prevalent in today's politics that allow a candidate to let others take responsibility for dirty deeds while staying above the fray is nothing new.

Locally, we only have to go back to the 2006 election in the 24th Congressional District between Democrat Michael Arcuri and Republican Ray Meier.

The two men were quite collegial in their many debates.

Meanwhile, the Republican and Democratic national congressional committees sent out mailings to local residents that surpassed in vile, misleading accusations anything folks in South Carolina are seeing this week.

The worst example came after an Arcuri campaign worker accidentally misdialed a phone call, and wound up reaching a sex hotline. After only a few seconds, the worker realized his mistake and hung up. But the Republican national committee got hold of the phone records.

The next thing you know, 24th Congressional District voters received a full-color brochure in their mailboxes giving the distinct impression that Michael Arcuri was spending all his time making sweaty calls to sex hotlines.

It was despicable, of course, but the national Democrats weren't much better in their sleazy attempts to sully Meier's name.

But when asked about the poison being promulgated on their behalf by their two parties, Arcuri and Meier both basically shrugged and said that while they didn't like it, there was nothing they could do about it.

What we are seeing now in the GOP presidential scrum is the 2006 Arcuri-Meier implausible deniability farce on steroids.

Thanks to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United ruling that extended First Amendment protections to corporations and labor unions, Political Action Committees _ or PACs _ can accept and spend unlimited money on behalf of candidates.

The so-called Super PACs aren't allowed to coordinate with the official campaign, but most of them are led and staffed by people with close ties to the candidates.

So, when a PAC with ties to Mitt Romney carpet-bombed Iowa voters with negative ads about Newt Gingrich, Romney was able to look like butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.

"I can't direct their ads," Romney said. "If there's anything in them that's wrong, I hope they take it out."

Sure, he did.

Perhaps more ominously, billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson took $5 million out of petty cash and gave it to a PAC supporting Gingrich, so he could sully Romney's reputation in South Carolina.

Mr. Adelson and the other very rich people supporting other candidates' PACs _ including President Barack Obama's _ are trying to buy an election. One of them will succeed.

That is frightening. Not just for this fall's election, but for democracy itself.